Re: [Patents] Halloween X

[Rui Miguel Seabra <rms@1407.org>]

On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 11:33 -0500, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> Russell concludes with:
> >Eithor way, whether we focus on the social science or economic public
> >policy aspects, information processes should not be patentable.
> 
> I assume you mean that "information processes when expressed in software
> should not be patentable, but information processes when expressed in
> hardware should be patentable"?

I believe he means that information processes [PERIOD].

You would like the reader to into fall on your trap, wouldn't you?
Software runs on hardware. I've never seen software running in anything
else than hardware or a hardware abstraction layer (software
emulation?). It is the mechanical part of the hardware, if it's really
inventive and teaches us something about controlling forces of nature,
that might be patentable, but the software part should never be
patentable.

Software is a formal representation of an information process, so that
hardware can interpret it and do something.

> and when you say that "Software is not technology, but technical knowledge,
> a service or policy", you really mean that "Software is not technology,
> but technical knowledge, a service or policy, unless the software is a
> description of hardware (VHDL), then the software is technology."

I wouldn't say that, and I can't see how he could mean that.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part